This directory, together with the text, gives readers a wealth of occupational safety and health information right at their fingertips. Author : Charles D. Reese Publisher: CRC Press ISBN: Category: Science Page: View: Read Now » Most occupational safety and health books explain how to apply concepts, principles, elements, tools of prevention and develop interventions, and initiatives to mitigate occupational injuries, illnesses and deaths.
It is a book designed to answer the questions often posed as to why should we do it this way. Highly illustrated and over pages in length, it covers all of the essential elements of health and safety management, the legal framework, risk assessment and control standards and also includes checklists, report forms and record sheets to supplement learning. It also has an extensive summary of current health and safety legislation.
It is also a source of reference and guidance for health and safety practitioners in the workplace. An excellent introductory reference for both students and professionals, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health provides practical information on technology, management, and regulatory compliance issues, covering crucial topics like organizing, staffing, directing, and evaluating occupational safety programs and procedures. When he hits the brakes, they fail to operate properly and the truck runs off the road and into a ravine.
As a result of the accident, John suffers severe back pain and is unable to work for several months. Under civil law, John contacts a local attorney, and after discussing the accident with her, decides to sue. After meeting with his counsel, John sues his employer, as owner of the truck; the dealership where the truck was last serviced; the manufacturer of the truck; and the owner of the land where the truck went off the road.
John is the plaintiff and each of the parties being sued is a defendant. His lawyer has advised John to follow the deep pockets theory and to sue everyone who might have money in the case. The policy of some companies is to never settle out of court if they do not absolutely believe they are at fault. Their perception is that settlements encourage additional law- suits.
Other companies settle when possible to avoid the legal expenses associated with a long court case, as well as the adverse pub- licity often accompanying a trial. Lawsuits, like the ones mentioned above, are typically initiated following a tort.
A tort is an act, or absence of an act, that causes a person to be injured, a reputation to be marred, or property to be damaged.
A lawsuit differs from a criminal case in that the purpose of a lawsuit is to obtain compensation for damage suffered. A crimi- nal case seeks to punish the wrongdoer without compensation.
A tort may give rise to a criminal action or a lawsuit. Today, any accident resulting in death, injury, or property dam- age can bring about a lawsuit, criminal prosecution, or both. Anyone can sue another party anytime for practically any reason.
Most are a result of some- one who perceives he has been wronged and seeks compensation. From a safety perspective, one of the major concerns is liability. Liability is either voluntarily assumed, as by contract, or imposed, as is the case following a lawsuit. Liability resulting from torts is of the latter type. Examples of intentional torts are assault, battery, false imprisonment, and defamation. If a person is made to feel apprehensive or afraid that he will be hurt or offensively contacted, then the other party may be guilty of assault.
A key element of apprehension is the knowledge that the assault occurred. If an employee hits another employee or even grabs the other employee by the shirt collar, the offending employee may be guilty of battery. The act may have caused little or no injury, but if it offends a reason- able person, then it may be considered battery.
If, however, the restrained individual has a means of exit available, then no false imprisonment has occurred. For example, merchants who restrain suspected shop- lifters might be sued for false imprisonment. If, however, the mer- chant merely stands between the shoplifter and the door to discuss the issue, and the shoplifter has another means of exit, no imprisonment has occurred. Defamation can occur through libel when the communication is written or broadcast through media such as radio or television.
Defamation is grounds for a lawsuit. The best defense against a defamation suit is the truth, but employees should be warned about the consequences of defamation lawsuits. A nega- tive reference letter or an adverse report about someone given by telephone may trigger a defamation suit. All of the above are examples of intentional torts. In order to successfully sue someone for an intentional tort, the plaintiff has to present a preponderance of evidence as opposed to proving the defen- dant guilty, as a prosecutor tries to do in a criminal case.
In an inten- tional tort lawsuit, the verdict is awarded to the individual who presents enough evidence to convince the judge or jury he should receive the verdict in his favor. Individuals need to also be aware of unintentional torts when par- ties are sued due to their unintentional actions. Typically, the parties being sued are negligent. Negligence involves creating an unreason- able risk of harm, as opposed to intentional torts that deal with con- duct likely to cause harm. The failure to exercise reasonable care under these circumstances can lead to a negligence suit.
The legal standard for reasonable care is the reasonable person who always acts prudently under the circum- stances and is never careless or negligent. If the party happens to be a professional, the standard is raised.
The skill level and expectations are higher for a professional than they are for the nonprofessional in a given area. If standards of performance exist, the professional should be aware of those standards and make every effort to comply with them. For example, accountants have certain standards that are maintained and published by the Financial Accounting Standards Board.
Profes- sionals are held to a higher standard of performance by the courts. Even though a plaintiff can successfully present a case for negli- gence and a preponderance of evidence, the defendant may not receive a favorable award because of a successful defense. Successful defenses that have prevented awards include contributory negligence, compar- ative negligence, and assumption of risk. Contributory negligence occurs when the plaintiff helped cause or actually contributed to the loss.
In some states, the defendant and the plaintiff may simply share the above award. In a comparative negligence award the amount is apportioned based on the percentage of fault. Assumption of risk occurs when the injured party knowingly accepts the risk involved in the action that leads to injury s. For example, a delivery person chooses to deliver a package by walking up ice-covered steps, falls and is injured, and takes legal action against the owner of the steps.
Role of the Safety Professional The safety professional should be aware of the various pitfalls open to management and other employees relative to rules of doing business. Employees unaware of the consequences of their actions may engage in activities detrimental to the well-being of the organization.
The safety professional should look for exposures to litigation due to torts and help the company avoid those exposures through advice to and education of managers and other employees. Product Liability Within the last few decades, litigation costs surrounding product safety have evolved, with some lawsuits reaching the million- or bil- lion-dollar award level in damages.
Much of the litigation evolved from the consumer movement of the late s and early s. One result of this movement was the passage of the Product Safety Act. Companies manufacturing products and not considering the above requirements place themselves at increased risk for product lia- bility. However, there are many unforeseeable factors that can hamper achievement of this goal.
Theories of Product Liability There are four important theories that form the basis of product liability and provide a fundamental understanding of product liabil- ity litigation: 1. Strict liability is the concept that a manufacturer of a product is liable for injuries received due to product defects, without the necessity for a plaintiff to show negligence or fault Hammer, In some instances, a party may be liable for damages caused even though there was no negligence or intentional tort.
In such cases, the purveyor of the activity is held to the concept of strict liability or liability without fault. Once it is determined damages are linked to the activity, the manufacturer will generally be held liable regardless of the circumstances. Negligence is the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care. In addition, it also includes the responsibility to carry out a legal duty so injury or property damage does not occur to another Hammer, Breach of express warranty occurs when the product does not meet the claims made by the manufacturer and, as a result, damage or injury occurs to another Colangelo and Thornton, When a company gives a statement of performance concerning a product, this statement becomes part of the product.
If the product fails to live up to the standards outlined by this statement, then the product breaches the express warranty. This warranty may be written, oral, or simply in the form of a demonstration. In essence, the seller may be held lia- ble if the seller makes an improper recommendation regarding use of the product Colangelo and Thornton, Even though no particular warranties are expressed, products are purchased for a particular purpose.
If, for example, a consumer buys a balloon and the balloon will not hold air, it is in violation of the implied warranty. The assumption made by the purchaser is that all balloons hold air.
This would be the concept of absolute liability. How- ever, these four basic theories clearly establish the product responsi- bilities of the manufacturer or seller in most states Brauer, Vertical privity refers to parties up and down the distribution chain.
Horizontal privity refers to users on a given level of the chain. Injured bystanders are protected under the concept of horizontal privity. Lawsuits In a product liability lawsuit, the plaintiff must present certain evidence to support the claim. The plaintiff must show a product failed to meet the implied or express warranty or misrepre- sented claims for the product. The manufacturers or sellers, on the other hand, have a number of defenses at their disposal for the four theories Brauer, They may try to show that although the product is dangerous, the danger itself is not a defect.
See chapter 9 for additional information. Safety should not be an afterthought in the design and manufacture of products if liability is to be minimized. Safety must be built into each and every product leaving the facility. Contracts A contract is a legally enforceable promise.
It may be expressed, implied-in-fact, or quasi-contractual. Contracts can be made in a number of ways. Express contracts are made when a person engages in an oral or written commitment to another to enter into a binding relationship.
Implied-in-fact contracts occur when parties indicate through their actions, rather than words, that they intend to agree. Quasi contracts occur when one party would be enriched unjustly if permitted to enjoy something received from another party. Party B may have to make reasonable restitu- tion to Party A for the services performed. In order for a contract to be valid, four conditions must be pres- ent. First, there must be an agreement; this requires an offer.
An offer states, in reasonably certain terms, what is promised and what each party will do. The courts consider the intention of the offering party. For example, if the person is joking, asking for details, or simply negotiating, an offer may not take place. Once an offer has been extended, acceptance may be made by the other party, or the other party may make a counteroffer.
In any case, in order for the contract to come into existence, there must be an agreement to the terms of the offer and then acceptance. Typically, there is no enforcement of the contract unless there is consideration. Consideration is exchanged in terms of goods, ser- vices, or restraint from doing something.
Both parties must be obliged to provide something, but the value provided by each party does not have to be equal. Sometimes a promise is exchanged for a small sum, but if fraud or improper conduct is evidenced, the contract is unenforceable. All parties to the contract must have the legal capacity to enter into the contract.
They must be of legal age, sober, and of sound mind. If, for example, a party enters into a contract with a minor one who is typically under the age of 18 , the contract may be void. There are exceptions to the above conditions, but these are generally upheld. If the contract has an illegal intent or calls for some action that vio- lates public policy, then it is typically void. Enforcement of contracts occurs under civil law. When one party fails to live up to his or her part of the contract, the other party may attempt to enforce the terms of the contract by bringing a lawsuit.
Certain points of law are sometimes pitfalls. For example, insur- ance contracts and some leases are considered contracts of adhesion. These documents are often offered to the purchaser or lessee. Because greater power rests with the author of the document, ambiguities and language subject to interpretation will typically be construed against the writer.
In such cases, the contract writer is considered to be the expert, so interpretations will tend to favor the weaker party, such as the insured or the lessee. Exculpatory or hold harmless clauses are sometimes written to limit or eliminate liability in certain contracts. Clauses in contracts similar to this do not pro- vide much protection for contractors or others whose intentional acts or negligence causes injury or damage.
Companies still use them, hoping to deter another party from actually suing. Safety professionals should be aware of the parol evidence rule, which states that the written contract supersedes any oral promises. When the written terms are agreed upon, they will govern the con- tract.
It is, therefore, worthwhile to review all written contracts based on a sales pitch. Insurance Companies can build safety into a product every step of the way. No unusual warranties may be given, and the salespeople may do an excellent and thorough job of explaining the product features. Buyers can even sign an exculpatory clause. However, even with the best products and the best of intentions, companies will still be sued. It is sometimes less expensive to defend against a lawsuit than to simply pay up.
Insurance is often the best protection against spurious lawsuits. Conclusion Safety practitioners need to be aware of the basic legal environment surrounding the workplace.
The concepts discussed in this chapter are complex and hold many exceptions and potential problems for manufacturers and con- sumers. Complete details are beyond the scope of this text. Do you think that there should be a cap on the amounts of jury awards that may be given beyond actual losses? Why or why not? Who pays for these awards?
Who pays in this case? Do you ever use exculpatory or hold harmless clauses in your work? Are you ever asked to sign them when you rent, purchase, or use property? What are the circumstances when you are likely to see them? Safety and Health for Engineers. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Bureau of National Affairs. Washington, DC: Author. Colangelo, V. Engineering Aspects of Product Liability. Hammer, W. Handbook of System and Product Safety.
Seiden, R. Responsibilities include advising the management team of the risks the facility faces. The professional then calls upon management to eliminate the hazards associated with those risks before losses occur.
Knowledge of accident causation theories permits the professional to more thoroughly recognize and communicate information regarding organizational safety problems.
Is the punch press guarded? It is possible to greatly expand the list of questions one might ask, given the few signals provided in this simple scenario. The more information and experience available, the more safety and health haz- ards are likely to be anticipated and recognized.
There are many theories associated with the causes of accidents, ranging from simple to complex. Some focus on employees and how their action or lack thereof contributes to accidents. Others focus on management and its responsibilities for preventing conditions leading to accidents.
Theories are not facts; they are tools predicting relation- ships that may exist in the future. Nor are they random events; they are usually predictable and preventable. By applying one or more theories, the professional is more likely to predict accidents and initiate activities preventing their occurrence or recurrence. Accidents represent failures in the system or management problems in the organization.
Management controls all the variables surrounding accidents. It creates the work environ- ment. It advertises for, hires, places, trains, and supervises workers. Management can reward for work it wants done and punish when procedures are violated. If the worker makes a fatal error, both OSHA and the courts will likely hold management responsible. Pub- lic opinion rarely favors management in accident situations. This is referred to as the pilot error syndrome; in other words, the pilot is blamed because he is dead, injured, or considered a weak scapegoat and cannot defend himself.
It is important to emphasize the safety professional is looking not for a place to assign blame, but for errors in the system. These errors can then be addressed so problems and accidents will be prevented in the future. Once the worker or pilot is blamed, management and the management system are off the hook; therefore, there is no reason to continue to search for why the accident occurred.
Anytime the accident investigator seeks to place blame, employ- ees run for cover. Stories will be concocted and the truth may not be found. A safety professional in a major company was investigating a helicopter accident following a crash involving a pilot and a few employees on a surveillance mission of the plant property.
Although no one was injured, the copter was a total loss and the investigation yielded no causes to be addressed. All aboard agreed the crash was due to wind shear. Some months later, the investigator found himself with one of those onboard and questioned him further regarding the incident with a promise of no reprisals.
Once on the ground, the pilot coached the other employees to agree on a story to tell the safety investigator. The investigator was true to his word and pursued no disciplinary action. If no slope were present—only solid ground next to the road—the truck would not roll down the hill. In either case, if the driver never checks the slope, it is simply a matter of chance as to whether or not a loss occurs.
The response to either should be the same in terms of active intervention with engineering or administrative controls, or the establishment of other controls.
Probability refers to the likelihood of the occurrence of an event. When used as part of a risk assessment tool in system safety, probabilities can be categorized as frequent, probable, occasional, remote, and improbable Roland and Moriarity, By studying safety-related data, it is possible to determine statistical trends for a variety of factors, such as the types of accidents e. Using the data on the frequency of occurrence of these events, it is possible to classify injuries, property damage, or other loss factors in terms of one of the probability categories.
The severity of the loss event must also be considered. Catastrophic 2. Critical 3. Marginal 4. Negligible These four categories correspond to death or loss of a system, severe injury or major damage, minor injury or system damage, and no injury or system damage respectively Roland and Moriarity, At the opposite end of the severity continuum, multiple fatalities or an explosion that destroys an entire building represent catastrophic loss events.
All companies face risk and the resultant potential losses on a daily basis. All new marketing and business ventures are examples of businesses taking risks. These are considered speculative loss exposures because they offer the opportunities for gain and loss. Exposures offering potential for loss with no opportu- nity for gain are referred to as pure loss exposures. Determining exposures a company faces is a formidable task, but it must be undertaken.
Companies may choose to bring in an outside consultant or depend on the advice of a representative such as a loss control expert from their insurance company. This person will review activities, procedures, and processes to determine where exposures occur.
Even large corporations have limited resources and must make decisions as to where to commit their resources. While controlling losses may seem to the safety manager like the most important way to utilize resources, the marketing director may feel that a new product intro- duction should take precedence.
The effects of investments in safety are measured by management against the expected return on invest- ment as well as the return on investment of other potential ventures. Figure Engi- neering controls include building a ventilation system to reduce explosive vapor levels, whereas administrative controls might limit exposures to toxic materials.
Issuing personal protective equipment PPE such as respirators is the last line of defense against hazards in the workplace. Refer to chapter 6 for a detailed examination of these three types of control methods. A company might try to avoid the loss altogether. If a company is in the business of producing football helmets, it may choose not to market the product due to the potential liability it would face if a wearer of one of its helmets was injured.
Instead, it may choose to produce novelty lamps that look like football helmets to limit its lia- bility exposure. Sometimes a company can reduce exposure by substitution. Occasionally, the company may choose to transfer the liability to another party, rather than run the risk of loss itself. Another form of risk transfer is insurance.
The insurance company enters into similar relationships with a number of other companies by selling them insurance policies too. With large numbers of insureds, it can more accurately estimate its own losses. Some companies simply retain their loss exposures without deal- ing with them. This may be a result of ignorance or choice. When companies choose to retain their own exposures, they may ignore them, or attempt to reduce them using one of the methods already mentioned; or they may, in fact, self-insure.
Self-insurance is simply no insurance; the company retains the loss exposure. All of the above assume the accident will occur.
The safety prac- titioner can use accident causation models to pinpoint hazards in the occupational environment. The bibliography found at the end of this chapter provides the student with resources to examine this area in greater detail. The intent is to provide examples of accident causation theories representative of past and current thinking.
Accident Causation Theories? Single Factor Theory The Single Factor Theory states there is a single and relatively sim- ple cause for all accidents. A good example of this theory would be in determining the cause of worker hand lacerations. Because utility knives are used in the operation, knowing something about the cause of these accidents does not necessarily stop the problem.
Other con- tributing factors such as the product or the work methods, as well as corresponding corrective actions, are overlooked when a single factor is considered the only cause. This theory is virtually useless for acci- dent and loss prevention. While each domino theory presents a different explanation for the cause of accidents, they all have one thing in common. All domino theories are divided into three phases: 1. Precontact phase: refers to those events or conditions that lead up to the accident 2.
Contact phase: refers to the phase during which the individual, machinery, or facility comes into contact with the energy forms or forces beyond their physical capability to manage 3. Postcontact phase: refers to the results of the accident or energy exposure. Domino theories represent accidents as predictable chronological sequences of events or causal factors.
Each causal factor builds on and affects the others. If allowed to exist without any form of interven- tion, these hazards will interact to produce the accident. In just that same way, acci- dents, according to the domino theories, will result if the sequence of precontact phase causes is not interrupted. Heinrich developed the original domino theory of accident causation in the late s. Although written decades ago, his work in accident causation is still the basis for several contemporary theories.
Negative character traits are why individuals behave in an unsafe manner and why hazardous conditions exist 3. Unsafe acts committed by individuals and mechanical or physical hazards are the direct causes of accidents 4. Falls and the impact of moving objects typically cause accidents resulting in injury 5.
Heinrich believed that unsafe acts caused more accidents than unsafe conditions. Therefore, his philosophy of accident prevention focused on eliminating unsafe acts and the people-related factors that lead to injuries Brauer, Lack of Control—Management. Control in this instance refers to the functions of a manager: planning, organizing, leading, and con- trolling.
Purchasing substandard equipment or tools, not provid- ing adequate training, or failing to install adequate engineering controls are just a few examples represented by this domino. Basic Cause s —Origin s.
These basic causes explain why people engage in substandard practices. Immediate Causes s —Symptoms. Once your activation code has been consumed the eBook cannot be returned for a refund. Free ground shipping for the contiguous United States. This process may take a few seconds, please be patient. Skip to main content. About Us. A comprehensive overview of occupational and environmental health nursing, the 4th edition updates and expands common core knowledge in OHN practice.
New underlying concepts throughout the book incorporate evidenced-based practice and a global perspective. Practical case studies are included to reflect specific examples of application to practice. In response to reader feedback, this new version has been extensively revamped into a narrative format, which allows for more in-depth discussion of critical topics.
If you have any questions, please contact us at info aaohn. The Online Test for the Fundamentals of Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing: AAOHN Core Curriculum, 4th edition is a series of test items intended to be used in conjunction with the 4th edition Core Curriculum textbook by nurses who wish to assess their baseline knowledge in occupational and environmental health nursing, prepare for certification in the specialty, or complete a review of the core knowledge in occupational and environmental health nursing for purposes of professional development.
Demonstrating Value is intended as a tool to guide you, the occupational and environmental health nurse OHN , in selecting the best methods to demonstrate your value and the value of the programming and services you provide to employees within your organization. While you may realize the value of your services, you may not have documented them or may not be able to articulate their value in business language. Can you say why you or your staff provide a particular role, service or task; and how that role impacts the business?
Or what would be the response if someone asked you what your most valuable service was and based on what criteria?
0コメント